In an interview with News, Michael Lysander Fremuth, Scientific Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights (LBI-GMR), explains the legal framework. He emphasizes that children under 14 enjoy religious freedom – meaning the headscarf ban affects not only parental rights and responsibilities, but also, in particular, the religious freedom of children themselves. Equally central is the constitutional principle of equality: girls and boys, different religions and worldviews must in principle be treated equally. At the same time, the state is tasked not only with imparting knowledge, but also with promoting values such as tolerance and equality, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Fremuth makes clear: “Freedom of religion and the right to religious eduction are not absolute fundamental rights.” Interventions are permissible if they are proportionate and serve the protection of young girls. The principle of equality does not entirely rule out selective measures, but it does establish high hurdles. Whether the planned headscarf ban will withstand scrutiny before the Constitutional Court will largely depend on whether the Court accepts the interpretation of the headscarf primarily as a cultural symbol of honour, and whether it follows the legislature’s assessment that the threat to girls’ autonomy is sufficiently clear and specific in practice that legislative action can be justified.

A regulation would stand a better chance, Fremuth argues, if it designed schools as a neutral space in general – that is, by prohibiting the visible display of religious symbols altogether, rather than targeting one specific symbol.